The reliability of end of day and ecological momentary assessments of pain and pain interference in individuals with spinal cord injury

Purpose This study investigated the most efficient means of measuring pain intensity and pain interference comparing ecological momentary assessment (EMA) to end of day (EOD) data, with the highest level of measurement reliability as examined in individuals with spinal cord injury. Methods EMA (five...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Quality of life research 2018-11, Vol.27 (11), p.3003-3012
Main Authors: Carlozzi, Noelle E., Schilling, Stephen, Freedman, Jenna, Kalpakjian, Claire Z., Kratz, Anna L.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adult
CLINICAL AND POLICY APPLICATIONS
Ecological Momentary Assessment
Female
Humans
Male
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Middle Aged
Pain
Pain - psychology
Pain Measurement
Paraplegia - psychology
Public Health
Quality of Life - psychology
Quality of Life Research
Reproducibility of Results
Self Report
Sociology
Spinal cord injuries
Spinal Cord Injuries - pathology
Surveys and Questionnaires
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Purpose This study investigated the most efficient means of measuring pain intensity and pain interference comparing ecological momentary assessment (EMA) to end of day (EOD) data, with the highest level of measurement reliability as examined in individuals with spinal cord injury. Methods EMA (five times throughout the day) and EOD ratings of pain and pain interference were collected over a 7-day period. Multilevel models were used to examine the reliability for both EOD and EMA assessments in order to determine the amount of variability in these assessments over the course of a week or the day, and a multilevel version of the Spearman-Brown Prophecy formula was used to estimate values for reliability. Results Findings indicate the minimum of number of EOD and EMA assessments needed to achieve different levels of reliability ("adequate" > 0.70, "good" > 0.80 and excellent > 0.90). In addition, the time of day (either morning, midday or evening) did not impact the estimated reliability for the EMA assessments. Conclusions These findings can help researchers and clinician balance the cost/benefit tradeoffs of these diiferent types of assessments by providing specific cutoffs for the numbers of each type of assessment that are needed to achieve excellent reliability.
ISSN:0962-9343
1573-2649
DOI:10.1007/s11136-018-1952-y